subjectAltName bugs (current CVS)

2002-06-20 Thread Bernhard Reiter
Alternative Name: extention is created. Bug #2: The email address in the request is not used. Bernhard $ openssl version OpenSSL 0.9.8-dev XX xxx CVS from today 20020620 $ openssl req -in newreq.pem -text Certificate Request: Data: Version: 0 (0x0) Subject

Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

2002-06-20 Thread Geoff Thorpe
Hi there, On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Giudicelli Frédéric via RT wrote: The problem is that the use oF engines should be totaly transparent to the higher API, but apparently it's not. The problem is RSA_check_key() is not a general transparent RSA function, it's designed (it would seem) to check

[openssl.org #98] OpenSSL engine ctrl: handling of strings

2002-06-20 Thread Geoff Thorpe via RT
Hi, [snip] I'm not sure I understand how this can be a generic problem. If an ENGINE implementation intends to store passed strings, ie. for use after the ENGINE_ctrl() command in question has returned, then it should surely be making a local copy? There are two points that leap to

Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

2002-06-20 Thread Kenneth R. Robinette
Date sent: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:02:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just my two cents on the

Re: [openssl.org #98] OpenSSL engine ctrl: handling of strings

2002-06-20 Thread Gtz Babin-Ebell
Geoff Thorpe via RT schrieb: Hi, Hello Geoff, [snip] But in the code I checked the passed string is only referenced, not copied... ahhh ... OK, right I'm with you now. So you see the problem is in the ENGINE implementations, not in the library code that passes the strings through to

Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

2002-06-20 Thread a y
From: Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:02:36 -0400 (EDT) . *Maybe* ... but even then it doesn't solve the case of public keys. Moreover, how do you

[openssl.org #110] Re: MDC2 inconsistancy

2002-06-20 Thread Lutz Jaenicke via RT
Ticket closed, as the problem is not reproducable with OpenSSL source. It rather seems to be a redhat problem. Best regards, __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List

minor bug in M_PKCS12_cert_bag_type

2002-06-20 Thread Sam Lang
#define M_PKCS12_cert_bag_type(bag) OBJ_obj2nid(bag-value.bag-type) if the variable passed in has the name bag, this works, but otherwise it breaks, because the second bag gets substituted as well. -Sam __ OpenSSL Project

Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

2002-06-20 Thread Geoff Thorpe
Hi, On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, a y wrote: *Maybe* ... but even then it doesn't solve the case of public keys. Moreover, how do you actually test a public key? What does check actually mean in this case? . Cheers, Geoff I would suggest the following for checking RSA public keys:

Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

2002-06-20 Thread Martin Kochanski
I'll second that. OpenSSL works excellently in isolation, but when you come to use it in a context in which there are *already* keys and certificate stores (eg. CAPI) it would be excellent to be able to access those directly, so that our software has the same familiar quirks as Microsoft's,

Re: [openssl.org #99] stumped by _ftime : openssl-0.9.7-beta1 make fails @ _ftime on OSX 10.1.4

2002-06-20 Thread R Blake via RT
fontfamilyparamMonaco/paramflushleftgeoff, the SNAP-20020620 commit builds just fine now . looks like the patch took. now i'll do some testing thanks! richard I have committed the patch that Pieter Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] submitted to fix this - Richard Blake [EMAIL